HammockHangers.net

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.

For me, the idea that its not the government''s job to tell us how to live leads to support of marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights and question prohibitions on polygamy, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and abortion. It is also an important consideration with respect to firearms, independent of the 2nd Amendment. But the devil is in the details. And the critical detail is the point at which engagement of an activity significantly affects people that did not agree to be involved with that activity.

Scott wrote:
Probably some, but not without careful discussion I would think.

For me, the idea that its not the government''s job to tell us how to live leads to support of marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights and question prohibitions on polygamy, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and abortion. It is also an important consideration with respect to firearms, independent of the 2nd Amendment. But the devil is in the details. And the critical detail is the point at which engagement of an activity significantly affects people that did not agree to be involved with that activity.

Notice the vast difference in approach between the pro government, socialist, liberal mind set and the conservative mind set, and I will also say the mind set of the founders mainly concerned with freedoms. Concerned with making as sure as possible that these God given rights of the people and the states could not be removed by a large, powerful centralized government. Hence the Bill of Rights ( not a bill of federal government rights, but a bill of rights to protect the people and states from that very government).

Notice that for Greg, "the idea that its not the government''s job to tell us how to live leads to support of marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights and question prohibitions on polygamy, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and abortion.". So his ( and of course most liberals and dems) idea of the government not telling me how to live is for the government to come into my private business- into which I have put my money and labor at risk, not the governments- and tell me that I must bake a cake for or take pictures of some one that the government favors. I am told that if I am not willing to serve every one on the government approved and favored list, I should either get out of business or face fines or jail. Look out, the government is going to get you if you don't bake that cake.

Or maybe you have founded your business and dedicated it to Christianity. You do not hide that Christianity ad your business are closely related or that the business will be based on those principles. People who know all of that seek out your business and apply for jobs. Now under Obama, here comes the feds saying you must pay for abortions by way of your insurance. Just forget the whole concept that the idea that you must even supply insurance to some one who has asked you to employee them is foreign to the idea of freedom and the countries founding. Now not only must you supply the insurance, it must also pay for abortions which you consider infanticide. And maybe for sex change surgery to boot. And then they are going to demand you open up your women's bathrooms to men who say they are women(but can you even ask if they are women?). On and on and on.

For the socialist, these oppressions are their idea of keeping government out of our lives. For me it is the definition of government tyranny, and the blatant breaking of the 1st, 10th and no doubt other amendments that are there to protect us from the federal government. Now that is going to be hard to find common ground on, common ground between freedom and tyranny. And this ever escalating enslavement is the essence of the Obamas, Clintons, Holders and Lynchs of the world, along with many of our SC justices.

I'm sure nothing I say will ever meet your requirements for productive discussions, as I am always going to be against the government oppression you will be for. But I did forget to mention in my rant: liberals have now gone from telling me what I can NOT say- because that will be illegal hate speech, though apparently only whites can commit that crime- to extending the list of things I must do ( for ex.,bake a cake) to things I must say. For example, NYs recent laws ( some day to be federal) that if a person wants to be called some bizarre brand new word describing their sexual mind set, Citizens must indeed now use these new words or the state government will crush them. So liberal governments now actually have laws about both the sounds which must not come out of your mouth and the sounds that must come out of your mouth, or else. I think Stalin would be proud of them. More evidence that liberals/dems/left wingers/socialists are the enemies of freedom.

Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Details - sort of. Taking things at face value is how I like to approach them.

I agree in states rights vs Federal rights. If Texas seceded, I might go with them.
I believe individuals can be LGBTCQ, Christian, Muslim, atheist, private drug use, etc, etc, etc.
I believe I have the right to discriminate as to whom I want to associate with in private and business matters. Let the market work it out.
Anything the government runs must be equal, things private people run do not.
Abortion is a sticky one. I believe it is a life, but for arguments sake, if it is legal, then if a pregnant woman is killed the person cannot be charged with killing a fetus. An unborn child cannot be a legal heir, etc. It is either a person or it is not. Too many people walk both sides of the fence depending on what day it is.
A person cannot harm another, and a person cannot be forced to help another.
Private property is private. Eminent domain only for govt building needs. i'm not a fan of HOA. If my property brings your value down, sorry. It's my property.
No one owes me anything, I don't owe anyone anything. Except to pay my share of roads, army, and police. But not 50% of my paycheck, over valued property taxes, and half my stuff when I die.
punishment or prohibition prior to harming someone is wrong.
ends don't justify means. If it can't be done above board, maybe is should not be done?
Govt cannot dictate morality or thought.
No one wins in war, but sometimes it is needed.
NO one can claim to be a victim because the person they picked a fight with kicked their ___. Criminals, teens at school, whatever.

A lot of this allows people to do things very much against how I live my life (drugs, abortion, etc), but I think they have the RIGHT to do it, but only if I have the rights listed above.

Details - sort of. Taking things at face value is how I like to approach them.

I agree in states rights vs Federal rights. If Texas seceded, I might go with them.
I believe individuals can be LGBTCQ, Christian, Muslim, atheist, private drug use, etc, etc, etc.
I believe I have the right to discriminate as to whom I want to associate with in private and business matters. Let the market work it out.
Anything the government runs must be equal, things private people run do not.
Abortion is a sticky one. I believe it is a life, but for arguments sake, if it is legal, then if a pregnant woman is killed the person cannot be charged with killing a fetus. An unborn child cannot be a legal heir, etc. It is either a person or it is not. Too many people walk both sides of the fence depending on what day it is.
A person cannot harm another, and a person cannot be forced to help another.
Private property is private. Eminent domain only for govt building needs. i'm not a fan of HOA. If my property brings your value down, sorry. It's my property.
No one owes me anything, I don't owe anyone anything. Except to pay my share of roads, army, and police. But not 50% of my paycheck, over valued property taxes, and half my stuff when I die.
punishment or prohibition prior to harming someone is wrong.
ends don't justify means. If it can't be done above board, maybe is should not be done?
Govt cannot dictate morality or thought.
No one wins in war, but sometimes it is needed.
NO one can claim to be a victim because the person they picked a fight with kicked their ___. Criminals, teens at school, whatever.

A lot of this allows people to do things very much against how I live my life (drugs, abortion, etc), but I think they have the RIGHT to do it, but only if I have the rights listed above.

Agreed 99%. My only sticking point is abortion. At the moment of conception, it is a life. IMHO there needs to be a constitutional amendment stating when life starts and protecting the unborn, or go back to the 10th amendment and leave it to the states. You want to kill babies, go live in California.

"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen James Mattis, USMC RET.
Owner/Administrator HammockHangers.net

Details - sort of. Taking things at face value is how I like to approach them.

I agree in states rights vs Federal rights. If Texas seceded, I might go with them.
I believe individuals can be LGBTCQ, Christian, Muslim, atheist, private drug use, etc, etc, etc.
I believe I have the right to discriminate as to whom I want to associate with in private and business matters. Let the market work it out.
Anything the government runs must be equal, things private people run do not.
Abortion is a sticky one. I believe it is a life, but for arguments sake, if it is legal, then if a pregnant woman is killed the person cannot be charged with killing a fetus. An unborn child cannot be a legal heir, etc. It is either a person or it is not. Too many people walk both sides of the fence depending on what day it is.
A person cannot harm another, and a person cannot be forced to help another.
Private property is private. Eminent domain only for govt building needs. i'm not a fan of HOA. If my property brings your value down, sorry. It's my property.
No one owes me anything, I don't owe anyone anything. Except to pay my share of roads, army, and police. But not 50% of my paycheck, over valued property taxes, and half my stuff when I die.
punishment or prohibition prior to harming someone is wrong.
ends don't justify means. If it can't be done above board, maybe is should not be done?
Govt cannot dictate morality or thought.
No one wins in war, but sometimes it is needed.
NO one can claim to be a victim because the person they picked a fight with kicked their ___. Criminals, teens at school, whatever.

A lot of this allows people to do things very much against how I live my life (drugs, abortion, etc), but I think they have the RIGHT to do it, but only if I have the rights listed above.

Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others. At first there were no laws regarding discrimination in business matters; then many very bad things happened. Only then were anti-discrimination laws passed. The market does not work it out in many cases; business dealings are often asymmetrical. For a recent example, read about Roger Ailes extorting sexual favors from women for over 30 years. Discrimination by private businesses was a big part of the Jim Crow era, are you OK going back to that situation? In the Chicago area real estate practices were such that they screwed the black communities out of huge sums of capital. Further, is it possible to differentiate discrimination from anti-competitive collusion? I think you'll have to give up most if not all anti-trust regulation. The right to discriminate provides a powerful tool that the more powerful can use to screw the less powerful. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

As it is, anti-discrimination laws are rather narrow and specific. For example, an employer can fire and employee for any reason EXCEPT for a rather short list of reasons. Anti-discrimination laws cover housing and public accommodations, but not so many other types of business. My understanding is that a woman could arrive at the emergency room needing an abortion to save her life and the Catholic hospital can legally refuse to allow it done on the hospital premises - even if there are staff willing to perform the procedure. FYI, the preferred treatment for certain types of miscarriage is considered to be an abortion.

Last edited by GregD on Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

First, that is a religious belief. It is not supported by science. Making abortion illegal is imposing your religious belief on someone else, and it is having the government tell someone how to live, and dictating morality.

Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. The rights of the mother ARE NOT subservient to the rights of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the mother is NOT the mother's responsibility. Her uterus is not your property, it's not government property, it's not the fetus's property; it is her very private property to do with as she sees fit.

If you think abortion is wrong, fine; don't have one. Don't impose your religions beliefs on someone else; and don't have the government impose your religious beliefs either.

Roe v. Wade is a compromise. Because there really isn't a clear, clean solution.

Its only a religious belief if you want to dismiss the notion that a fetus is a life, nascent yes, but without intervention it would become a sentient being. You're doing so in order to avoid discussing the notion that with life comes rights.

You're the guy who's always criticizing the folks here for not having a productive discussion, yet first shot out of the barrel you dismiss the entire premise of the discussion.

You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr SolzhenitsynMy You Tube Channel

Sticking to Discrimination:
Most cases you mentioned where someone was harmed by discrimination included other types of corruption or abuses of power. Quid Pro Quo is not discrimination, it is harassment. That is different. The anti-trust might be sticky, but that is less about discrimination and more about price fixing and dishonest business practices. I don't see that as the same issue.

No one has the right to abuse another person. But we should have the right to choose if we do business with an individual.

interesting story a couple of weeks ago. Austin jail has a disproportionate percentage of black people compared to the population, something like 10% compared to 20%, or something similar. If we 'fix' that, does that mean we need 52% women in prison since they are about that in society?

While the list of protected classes is small, but growing, the reality is anyone that falls into one of those categories (even religious these days as Christians seem to be fair game for discrimination on a lot of fronts) and then loses a job, house, dirty look, doesn't get a cake, whatever, they revert back to the argument that it was BECAUSE they are part of a class, and it is the job of the defendant to prove otherwise. So by default, EVERYTHING is protected, similar to how the fed gov takes authority over everything via the commerce clause even if the entire life cycle of a product is within one state, or the EPA with water touching everything so they have authority.

I would love to live in a society where we are free to do what we will with what we have. I realize that means I might get some pointed my way because I am a Christian, etc. None of the anti discrimination laws change peoples minds any more than anti gun laws make us safer. They just change who is getting discriminated against. It is open season on white Christian men. It is not enough to live and let live, we now have to embrace and financially support those that are protected.

And for the record there is no group I am looking to put down or discriminate against specifically. In high school my Thai friend lived with us, a black friend lived with us for a while, I currently have legal and illegal Mexicans as close friends.
********************************************
Scuba - I agree on the abortion issue. But IF it is legal, at least they should treat is evenly and not both as a person and not as a person. I have never found this topic to be open for discussion and the sharing of ideas from the two sides. Both are trying to convince the other they are wrong so I don't spend much time on it. I vote it is a life. I vote for freedom of choice, to have sex or not. Once pregnant, the choice has been made.

First, that is a religious belief. It is not supported by science. Making abortion illegal is imposing your religious belief on someone else, and it is having the government tell someone how to live, and dictating morality.

Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. The rights of the mother ARE NOT subservient to the rights of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the mother is NOT the mother's responsibility. Her uterus is not your property, it's not government property, it's not the fetus's property; it is her very private property to do with as she sees fit.

Roe v. Wade is a compromise. Because there really isn't a clear, clean solution.

I am curious how RvW is a compromise. it made abortion legal. Where is the other side?

And for viability, if I choose to not feed my infant and it dies, does that mean it was not viable yet? You are right, there is no clean answer.

Its only a religious belief if you want to dismiss the notion that a fetus is a life, nascent yes, but without intervention it would become a sentient being. You're doing so in order to avoid discussing the notion that with life comes rights.

You're the guy who's always criticizing the folks here for not having a productive discussion, yet first shot out of the barrel you dismiss the entire premise of the discussion.

Please then elaborate on how it is something other than a religious belief. It is my understanding that the scientific evidence is that many eggs don't get fertilized; many fertilized eggs don't implant in the right spot; many fertilized and properly implanted eggs are miscarried. There is not, as far as I know, any overwhelming reason to conclude conception is necessarily the moment a human life exists. It is a gradual progression with significant attrition at every step. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude life begins at conception. However, that is not the only reasonable conclusion. What makes your reasonable conclusion "right" and alternative reasonable conclusions "wrong"?

Then there is the question of when human life is important, and when it is not. For many, religious beliefs answer that question. For me, an atheist, practical and emotional considerations answer that question.

And there is still point #2.

In the end we probably won't agree. What then do we do? Succession? Armed conflict? How about a compromise?

Ultimately we are deciding, with this and other issues, are we friends or are we enemies. Armed conflict is the traditional method that humans use to resolve differences. It is always a bad option, but always an option it is.

First, that is a religious belief. It is not supported by science. Making abortion illegal is imposing your religious belief on someone else, and it is having the government tell someone how to live, and dictating morality.

Second, even if the fetus is a person, the mother owes nothing to the fetus. You just agreed with that principle. The rights of the mother ARE NOT subservient to the rights of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the mother is NOT the mother's responsibility. Her uterus is not your property, it's not government property, it's not the fetus's property; it is her very private property to do with as she sees fit.

If you think abortion is wrong, fine; don't have one. Don't impose your religions beliefs on someone else; and don't have the government impose your religious beliefs either.

Roe v. Wade is a compromise. Because there really isn't a clear, clean solution.

You claim to be a scientist and say this? Unless the cells being produced after the egg is fertilized are dead, then they are ALIVE. So, if you have LIVING cells formed from the union of sperm and egg, they are an embryo that is ALIVE. If you want to argue viability, that is a different story. Medically, the current standard for viability in the US is 24 weeks, but infants born at 22 weeks have been found to have a 25% survival rate in the US currently.

Even a simple single celled organism is alive, but you are unwilling to say the same about an organism that started as a single celled zygote and transformed into a several hundred celled blastocyst a week later.

"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen James Mattis, USMC RET.
Owner/Administrator HammockHangers.net